One thing I have noticed is the rules we are using are BEFORE scratchings.

Hence where I have suggested using fields of 8-14 these are before scratchings and could include races with 5,6 or 7 starters (after scratchings) and similarly for barriers 3-8 if a horse drawn in barrier 2 is scratched the horse that would have moved from barrier 3 to 2 still qualifies but a horse moving from barrier 9 to 8 does not.

I guess if we are consistent with the parameters we use then it should not make much difference to the results we achieve.

hold your tickets - we have a protest and maybe a new winner

412% POT

theres more POT here than what was at woodstock..........

Sure beats me .I,ve only got 62.6 % on TO
darky

If one struck a $6.00 shot with their first bet, then no more bets for the rest on the year , that would equate to 500% POT & the eventual winner of the exercise , wouldn't it?

im guessing so - and heres me thinking a 12.99% profit was good.....it took me ages to get that score .....

Even 5 % per year POT is great.The late Don Scott worked hard to get that figure.,and manually too.But then he never bothered with backfitting results
Personally I wouldnt have the patience to bxxxer around with his rigmarole.
Darky

Request to the Stewards
 

Mr Steward,
Please don't fire in any protest on my behalf. A system which picks just one winner for the year, even if (or especially if) it's from just eleven bets is no system. The reason I mentioned that subsystem was to illustrate that POT, albeit the point of this thread, is probably not the best way to judge a system.
In my humble opinion Bhagwan's looks far the most promising and the POT if that is what you're after can be raised to 94.96% by simply raising the Unitab price threshold to $5.00. One interesting fact though about his system (as with some of mine I hasten to add) is the long strings of losers followed by winners coming in bunches. It obviously warrants further investigation as to why? Maybe track conditions, class of races who knows? But I will try to find out and let you know.
Cheers
Ron

The hardest thing to do in creating systems , is to try & formulate a profitable plan that has very few rules.

The fewer the rules , the greater the chance it has of repeating its success into the future.

Having large runs of outs is part & parcel of most selection plans.

The theoretical longest run of outs to expect with a 25%SR at some stage, is 25 outs in a row.
So make sure the bank can handle 3.5 times that if betting level stakes.

Restricting the price range is possible one of the better filters one can use to increase profits.

is their some sort of scale or mathematical equation with that run of outs - its sounds very interesting- For example whats the theory on a 40% SR or a 15% SR ..... mmmmmmmmm ........ I average about 22%SR with one system and in 18months it has a longest streak of 9 outs - that would mean somewhere down the track i could expect a run of outs of about 30 ..... is this correct ??????

Hi Boobydazzler,

By my maths, you are hitting 22% winners, so have a 78% chance of hitting a loser.

So chance of runs of outs:

1 = 78%
2 = 60.1% (.78 x .78)
3 = 47.4 % (.60.1 x .78)
4 = 37% (47.4 x .78)
5 = 28.88% (37 x .78)
6 = 22.5% (28.88 x .78)
7 = 17.56% (22.5 x .78)
8 = 13.7% (17.56 x .78)
9 = 10.68% (13.7 x .78)
10 = 8.33% (10.68 x .78)

I believe this is correct, if anyone can delve deeper please feel free to.

The Schmile